paul, I absolutely agree that we have to recognize the value of unsettled
convictions (I assure you, mine are probably way grayer than yours), and
even that we have to live, like a typical Dostoevsky hero, with
contradictory beliefs. And though I sympathize with your frustration, and
the frustrations of Rebecca, and many others (like poor Brian) who really
don't want to come near theoretical discussion, I cannot agree that
discussions of art are "banal," simply because they do not lead to
unanimous agreement--or a mutual, prolonged exchange of edible goods. I
believe, particularly because we do tolerate "shades of gray," we should
also be prepared to recognize the value of multivocality. In a sense,
since it's unanimity that kills art (e.g., unanimity of the gesture,
unanimity of response), and understanding that engenders unanimity, we
should welcome the posts that bore us or piss us off--unless our aim is
simply to remain in a soft, comfortable fog.
Best,
Mike
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Paul Bettinson wrote:
> The whole idea of 'framing' something has been questioned many times over,
> even Rosalind Krauss had a few things to say this in The Optical
> Unconscious.....also of exhibiting outside gallery context has been explored
> for many many years!....and commercial art? whats that?...plus stuff can be
> cultural without it having this origonal intention.....plus there have been
> a good few poets who have exploded the idea of the finished structure poem
> and let their notes, verbal rants be visualised/vocalised before and as
> their poem/performance..but i get what you are talking about....also
> critical theory has also made stuff (like your toyota website example) as
> pieces or modes of cultural work in the past few years - its not the
> intention of the original maker in some cases....."What we call art?" could
> be changed to "what we call progress?"..?...
>
> Apologizing in advance, I very much dislike this banal discussion about what
> is A.R.T. Can we move on please? :)
>
> I agree with jeniffer vignone about shades of grey.....exploring...
>
> regards
>
>
>
> On 1/26/06, Jennifer Vignone <jennifervignone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > How do you know that the creator of a web site or poster or anything
> > doesn't want it to be considered as art?
> > What about Lautrec's posters? I would consider them art, not just craft
> > well done.
> > What about "art" that isn't hung in a gallery or museum because the
> > artist isn't fortunate enough,
> > connected enough, doesn't care to make that effort?
> >
> > What is I matte a poster?
> > What if I don't?
> >
> > > If the reader is not aware of the different mind sets required, then
> > > the
> > > reader is undeucated.
> >
> > or just doesn't care or was never exposed, or has a disability that
> > prevents the appreciate of such things.
> >
> > I am glad you seem to have this so well thought out for yourself.
> > I am willing to accept the shades of gray that keeps people creating
> > and exploring.
> > Otherwise we would have no art whatsoever.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Michael Andrews wrote:
> >
> > > Simple English, no hidden message:
> > >
> > > An artifact produced with the intention that it should be considered
> > > as art.
> > > This is combined with the maker declaring it as art.
> > >
> > > This has a number of levels.
> > > In the case of a poem, the first, crude writing is written with the
> > > intention of being art,
> > > but the poet may not call it art until many revisions later, if ever.
> > > In the case of free verse narrative poets, the notes may go from prose
> > > blocks
> > > into lines of verse. One of the purposes of verse lines is to announce
> > > to
> > > the reader
> > > that this is intended to read as a poem, not as prose in a computer
> > > manual.
> > >
> > > If the reader is not aware of the different mind sets required, then
> > > the
> > > reader is undeucated.
> > >
> > > In the case of a photograph, the original snap may have been executed
> > > with the intention of art, but the photographer may not call it art
> > > until
> > > it is scanned, manipulated, cropped, fixed, and then a suitable print
> > > produced.
> > > Even then there are sometimes two or three additional steps.
> > > Matting announces to the viewer that this is intended to be seen as
> > > art.
> > > It sets it apart from the world that surrounds it asks the viewer to
> > > consider this as more than a piece of working scratch paper.
> > > Framing tells the world this piece of paper is a completed piece; that
> > > in
> > > the eyes of the
> > > photographer this is now called art.
> > >
> > > Hanging an artifact in a gallery or in an exhibition also announces the
> > > artist's intention.
> > >
> > > In the case of a commercial website there is no intention of art,
> > > only craft, and normally the programmer does not announce to the world
> > > that
> > > this is art
> > > even though he/she may proudly announce some bit of commercial craft
> > > well
> > > done.
> > >
> > > While early versions of an artifact may be of scholarly interest,
> > > no poet would want his first notes criticized as art in comparison to
> > > finished work.
> > >
> > > Intention and definition.
> > > Without either, the world should be gracious enough to allow the
> > > creator
> > > the freedom to make artifacts, such as early versions or commercial
> > > craft,
> > > without be threatened with denunciation by over zealous and misguided
> > > art
> > > critics.
> > >
> > > Conversely, actual art should be accorded the respect
> > > of a criticism that is not so meaningless as to compare
> > > an egg carton with Praxiteles.
> > >
> > > michael
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jennifer Vignone" <jennifervignone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > > To: <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:12 AM
> > > Subject: Re: art
> > >
> > >
> > >> Please explain the phrase
> > >> "intend it as art..."
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Jan 26, 2006, at 10:55 AM, Michael Andrews wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Richard
> > >>>
> > >>> We just fell through the looking glass.
> > >>>
> > >>> If art is defined as broadly as this the term is meaningless.
> > >>>
> > >>> Any human activity from tooth brushing to genocide is an art.
> > >>>
> > >>> The problem with equating the alphabet with waxed linen,
> > >>> or java with poetry,
> > >>> or a web site with a book
> > >>> is that it renders all meaningful discussion pointless -
> > >>> everything is everything,
> > >>> end of tautology.
> > >>>
> > >>> Commercial art is craft, not art.
> > >>> It is a matter of intention and who pays the commission,
> > >>> Commercial art has precious little to do with an artist's POV or
> > >>> world
> > >>> view
> > >>> or examined life; it has to do with skill, technique, craft and work
> > >>> for
> > >>> hire
> > >>> - much like religious kitsch.
> > >>>
> > >>> I certainly never considered a web site I made for Toyota as art,
> > >>> with or without JavaScript, let alone accounts payable,
> > >>> with or without skill, code, content and whether it was good or not.
> > >>>
> > >>> To criticize a web site as art depends on intention.
> > >>> If the creator did not intend it as art, then it ain't art
> > >>> - and that's logic.
> > >>>
> > >>> It is not that it is unjust to the creator,
> > >>> it is that it destroys criticism itself.
> > >>> There are no longer any meaningful distinctions.
> > >>> Rational thought is not discursive for no rational reason.
> > >>>
> > >>> Good is not an adequate definition of art.
> > >>>
> > >>> Hitler was good at his job. Was he just a misunderstood artist?
> > >>> Was the Invasion of Poland a book?
> > >>> Porno Sites are good in terms of getting the job done.
> > >>> The Republican party is good at loading the Supreme Court.
> > >>> I imagine there are plenty of anesthetized brains out there who think
> > >>> a Bush
> > >>> with any set of initials is an artist.
> > >>> Many carpenters are good. I doubt many of them consider framing to be
> > >>> an art
> > >>> form
> > >>> although there seems to be little doubt that nails and studs are
> > >>> words
> > >>> and
> > >>> bindings.
> > >>>
> > >>> Oh my, I just made a book.
> > >>>
> > >>> see you down the rabbit hole
> > >>>
> > >>> michael
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> From: "Richard Minsky" <minsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> To: <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:07 AM
> > >>> Subject: Re: art
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> The Internet is my favorite book.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Code is the thread that binds the pages together. When I made the
> > >>>> first book art website in 1993 I was very excited that I could use
> > >>>> html code as binding thread. Like Michael, I am a computer geezer. I
> > >>>> started off programming an IBM 360 in machine language in 1964. Now
> > >>>> there are many forms of code, as there are many forms of
> > >>>> bookbinding.
> > >>>> We have perl, java, javascript, etc.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would not agree, however, that it is not art because it has a
> > >>>> commercial purpose. There are many kinds of art. Commercial Art is
> > >>>> a
> > >>>> big field. And some TV commercials transcend their pecuniary
> > >>>> function and become iconic artworks of the culture. Some are
> > >>>> entertainment. Some are hilarious. The reason I titled this thread
> > >>>> "art" with no modifier is that it raises the fundamental question
> > >>>> that some have stated--when do we call it art.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It further goes toward our field wide nomenclature: Book Art is a
> > >>>> subset of Book Arts. The latter includes industrial arts, hand
> > >>>> crafts, etc. When the metaphoric content of a work is enhanced or
> > >>>> furthered by the materials, form and images, then we call it Book
> > >>>> Art. We distinguish between Fine Art, Decorative Art and
> > >>>> Illustration. I've written and spoken a lot about this.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So we have two different questions posed by Peter and Michael: Is it
> > >>>> a book?, and is it art?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Whether it's good or not is another question. But it may be THE
> > >>>> question. Rose Slivka said "If it's good, it's art. If it's not, who
> > >>> cares?"
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Richard
> > >>>> http://minsky.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ***********************************************
> > >>>> Now Online - The Bonefolder, Vol. 2, No. 1 at
> > >>> <http://www.philobiblon.com/bonefolder>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> For all your subscription questions, go to the
> > >>>> Book_Arts-L FAQ and Archive.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> See <http://www.philobiblon.com> for full information
> > >>>> ***********************************************
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ***********************************************
> > >>> Now Online - The Bonefolder, Vol. 2, No. 1 at
> > >>> <http://www.philobiblon.com/bonefolder>
> > >>>
> > >>> For all your subscription questions, go to the
> > >>> Book_Arts-L FAQ and Archive.
> > >>>
> > >>> See <http://www.philobiblon.com> for full information
> > >>> ***********************************************
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> ***********************************************
> > >> Now Online - The Bonefolder, Vol. 2, No. 1 at
> > > <http://www.philobiblon.com/bonefolder >
> > >>
> > >> For all your subscription questions, go to the
> > >> Book_Arts-L FAQ and Archive.
> > >>
> > >> See < http://www.philobiblon.com> for full information
> > >> ***********************************************
> > >
> > > ***********************************************
> > > Now Online - The Bonefolder, Vol. 2, No. 1 at
> > > <http://www.philobiblon.com/bonefolder>
> > >
> > > For all your subscription questions, go to the
> > > Book_Arts-L FAQ and Archive.
> > >
> > > See <http://www.philobiblon.com> for full information
> > > ***********************************************
> > >
> >
> > ***********************************************
> > Now Online - The Bonefolder, Vol. 2, No. 1 at <
> > http://www.philobiblon.com/bonefolder>
> >
> > For all your subscription questions, go to the
> > Book_Arts-L FAQ and Archive.
> >
> > See <http://www.philobiblon.com> for full information
> > ***********************************************
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Paul Bettinson
> Postboks 4703 Sofienberg
> 0506 Oslo
> Norway
> Tel: 0047 99534993
> ---
>
> ***********************************************
> Now Online - The Bonefolder, Vol. 2, No. 1 at <http://www.philobiblon.com/bonefolder>
>
> For all your subscription questions, go to the
> Book_Arts-L FAQ and Archive.
>
> See <http://www.philobiblon.com> for full information
> ***********************************************
>
***********************************************
Now Online - The Bonefolder, Vol. 2, No. 1 at <http://www.philobiblon.com/bonefolder>
For all your subscription questions, go to the
Book_Arts-L FAQ and Archive.
See <http://www.philobiblon.com> for full information
***********************************************